Investigation of the 9/11 Commission

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
You really will say and do anything to deny any type of collusion by the Power Elite whatsoever. You call us crazy, but that's only because you are either woefully ignorant, or deliberately trying to mislead. As usual, I suspect the latter. Your user name is most appropriate.

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

No it's not that anyone is trying to mislead you. Just that you espouse crazy ideas. Everyone and everything is in on it if you need them to be. You believe in conspiracies so huge and vast that they encompass practically everyone even posters here.

That is a crazy belief. You can't blame others for it.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Ahh, I see. Now it all becomes crystal clear:

"That was then, yes, but this is now, dear investor. Our predecessors were corrupt, no doubt, but you can trust US, we're honest!

reply to post by SimontheMagus


You assume the money existed to begin with. But that's why they call it a bubble, there's nothing to back it up with.

Take recent news for example.
'They' say that people have lost up to 40% of their net worth.
I say that if people took out 95% loans on their homes they had no net worth to speak of. You can't lose what you didn't have to begin with.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

You assume the money existed to begin with. But that's why they call it a bubble, there's nothing to back it up with.

Take recent news for example.
'They' say that people have lost up to 40% of their net worth.
I say that if people took out 95% loans on their homes they had no net worth to speak of. You can't lose what you didn't have to begin with.

All their "money" is fake, has been for along time. Its all about power and the ILLUSION of money. And that is the game they play. I am very well aware that its not about the numbers. "Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who writes it's laws."

**Attention**

The adhominems stop now.

There is no reason to discuss each other, the topic of the thread is "Investigation of the 9/11 Commission"

Nowhere does that imply that we can nit pick at each other and be rude.

Please be mindfull of the T&C or risk loosing your posting privileges.

Thank You.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Don't twist it Dave. The formula below is there to help you understand. It doesn't say one ounce vs 50 pounds.

This is why , just like your avatar , you can't understand physics. And which is why the Elitist are betting there are more Dave's than Bruno's.

Excuse me??? I'm going by what it says in your signature in black and white...well, okay, gray and white...

"2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers"

This is an intellectually lazy understanding of what happened. The impact combined with the fires caused structural failure for a section of nineteen or so floors and this section of nineteen or so floors pulverized each individual floor in turn, becuase whatever structural integrity each floor had, it couldn't hold up nineteen floors crashing down in it and each floor failed in turn exactly like dominos. This is what every video of the collapse proves and it cannot be waved away simply for the expediency of your cute little attempt at a signature...and let's face it, you didn't even concoct this signature yourself. You got that off one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites.

...and what does that even have to do with the 9/11 commission report? The report didn't mention how the buildings collapsed one way or the other. Thsi forum is about what the 9/11 commission report did cover- Mohammed Atta, Al Qaida's involvement, the US gov't s response during the attack, all of that. You did read the 9/11 commission report and you're not just blindly repeating rhetoric like some Richard Gage groupie...RIGHT?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Don't twist it Dave. The formula below is there to help you understand. It doesn't say one ounce vs 50 pounds.

This is why , just like your avatar , you can't understand physics. And which is why the Elitist are betting there are more Dave's than Bruno's.

Excuse me??? I'm going by what it says in your signature in black and white...well, okay, gray and white...

"2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers"

This is an intellectually lazy understanding of what happened. The impact combined with the fires caused structural failure for a section of nineteen or so floors and this section of nineteen or so floors pulverized each individual floor in turn, becuase whatever structural integrity each floor had, it couldn't hold up nineteen floors crashing down in it and each floor failed in turn exactly like dominos. This is what every video of the collapse proves and it cannot be waved away simply for the expediency of your cute little attempt at a signature...and let's face it, you didn't even concoct this signature yourself. You got that off one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites.

...and what does that even have to do with the 9/11 commission report? The report didn't mention how the buildings collapsed one way or the other. Thsi forum is about what the 9/11 commission report did cover- Mohammed Atta, Al Qaida's involvement, the US gov't s response during the attack, all of that. You did read the 9/11 commission report and you're not just blindly repeating rhetoric like some Richard Gage groupie...RIGHT?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



My signature is my signature. No where in any other website does my signature appear. It came from my logical mind. Something you clearly choose to ignore. Understand!!

Your cute story of the domino effect jargon is just that a cute story. No proof behind it. Do you really think if there was a clone WTC tower and a controlled experiment was performed using a replica 767 that the same dam blatant free fall(and don't give me it didn't drop at free fall speed, even if it was a bit slower than the actual free fall velocity, it was dropping pretty dam quick,meaning hardly no freaking resistance) would have happened?. If you believe that then you clearly ignore the basic laws of physics. And I suggest you immediately take ,at least one, course on the physical properties of structural iron.

You are neither and architect,engineer,contractor of any sort nor a physicist. Which explains why you blindly believe a report that doesn't explain how the building collapsed ,accurately and with clarity. And dont ask me how,,, I know..

This is not a forum , this is a thread in the 911 forum. And everything that involves 911 is connected. If you haven't notice , every 911 thread on ATS ,automatically morphs into another topic within the 911 realm. Its all relevant. But you can always count on an OSers to rat on others that some ATS rule is being broken. Typical.


And I could give hoot about Richard Gage or anyone else. I do not need friends or followers or nor do I care if I inspire or make enemies. I am sure of myself that I do not need reassurance that my flawless/undebunkable signature is a sound statement.


Right?

You do know your avatar makes you look stupi...ignorant.

Right?






















~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Ahh, I see. Now it all becomes crystal clear:

"That was then, yes, but this is now, dear investor. Our predecessors were corrupt, no doubt, but you can trust US, we're honest!

I'm not sure why my post has been excised, given that it was a fairly measured explanation of why you're wrong.

And this response makes no sense at all. The current banking crisis was created by a collapse in the value of American property markets and the subsequent fallout caused by derivatives based upon it. All the major Wall Street banks (save Morgan Stanley, a bit) lost loads of money because they held positions in those derivatives. Their clients, the pension funds, retail banks, and FP companies like AIG lost enormous sums.

The people who profited were a handful of generally independent investors and we know who they are. The wall street titans, the "banksters" almost all lost out hugely. You can't name a single person who profited and fits your description of a conspiracist.

I'm not saying that there is a 'new mob' of trustworthy people. I'm saying that the winners and losers in the crisis are known, and they are not your shadowy corporate entities. Indeed the corporates almost all lost out, and the ones that didn't take a huge bath would prefer to have the market back again. Your comment is particularly and ironically absurd because you are the one who is asking me to believe that nobody in any of Wall Streets ivory towers, the Masters of the Universe at Lehman and Goldman and Merrils and Citi, was involved in your conspiracy. That the banks were corrupt but then at some point became not. That seems crazy.

I ask you again, if you can point to a person who profited from the 08-09 crisis, and who fits your description of an individual who is trying to create this single corporation, then name them.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
My signature is my signature. No where in any other website does my signature appear. It came from my logical mind. Something you clearly choose to ignore. Understand!!

There isn't anything remotely logical about your signature. You're falsely claiming that the impact directly caused the destruction of the building when it didn't- it was the structural failure and subsequent collapse of the section of the nineteen top floors that caused the destruction of the building. The structural failure was caused by fires in combination with impact damage. It was the impact of the plane that caused the fires and the impact damage. If you attempt to claim anything else, you will be lying.

Your cute story of the domino effect jargon is just that a cute story. No proof behind it. Do you really think if there was a clone WTC tower and a controlled experiment was performed using a replica 767 that the same dam blatant free fall(and don't give me it didn't drop at free fall speed, even if it was a bit slower than the actual free fall velocity, it was dropping pretty dam quick,meaning hardly no freaking resistance) would have happened?. If you believe that then you clearly ignore the basic laws of physics. And I suggest you immediately take ,at least one, course on the physical properties of structural iron.

There WAS a clone of the north tower. It was called "the south tower". Both buildings had the exact same design and the exact same set of damage occurred to each one, so logically and statistcially whatever happened to one building would have happened to the other building...and it did.

...and your understanding of physics is freshman at best. Just because there was resistance it doesn't mean there was significant resistance. Noone, not even those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to, has ever calculated out how much resistance that first floor to fail should have offered against the 19 floors falling down on it...nor have they calculated out how fast the building *should* have fallen. If you can't do that, then your objections of "near free fall speeds" are moot because you have not proven it should have behaved differently.

You are neither and architect,engineer,contractor of any sort nor a physicist. Which explains why you blindly believe a report that doesn't explain how the building collapsed ,accurately and with clarity. And dont ask me how,,, I know..

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you "were revealed the truth in a dream" or "aliens beamed the truth into your head" the only way anyone can understand how the towers collapsed "accurately and with clarity" is specifically from reading a report someone wrote about it. We can disagree on the findings of the report, but the simple act of reading the report isn't anything that anyone needs to hide.

...and which report are you referring to here? The 9/11 commission report didn't document the physical causes of the collapse becuase that wasn't what the commission was set up to do- it was to document who attacked us, how they did it, and what the US did in response, in addition to recommendations so that it won't happen again. As a truther you had the obligation to know this before you began posting this drivel you got off some damned fool conspiracy web site. I shouldn't need to poitn that out to you.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
My signature is my signature. No where in any other website does my signature appear. It came from my logical mind. Something you clearly choose to ignore. Understand!!

There isn't anything remotely logical about your signature. You're falsely claiming that the impact directly caused the destruction of the building when it didn't- it was the structural failure and subsequent collapse of the section of the nineteen top floors that caused the destruction of the building. The structural failure was caused by fires in combination with impact damage. It was the impact of the plane that caused the fires and the impact damage. If you attempt to claim anything else, you will be lying.

Your cute story of the domino effect jargon is just that a cute story. No proof behind it. Do you really think if there was a clone WTC tower and a controlled experiment was performed using a replica 767 that the same dam blatant free fall(and don't give me it didn't drop at free fall speed, even if it was a bit slower than the actual free fall velocity, it was dropping pretty dam quick,meaning hardly no freaking resistance) would have happened?. If you believe that then you clearly ignore the basic laws of physics. And I suggest you immediately take ,at least one, course on the physical properties of structural iron.

There WAS a clone of the north tower. It was called "the south tower". Both buildings had the exact same design and the exact same set of damage occurred to each one, so logically and statistcially whatever happened to one building would have happened to the other building...and it did.

...and your understanding of physics is freshman at best. Just because there was resistance it doesn't mean there was significant resistance. Noone, not even those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to, has ever calculated out how much resistance that first floor to fail should have offered against the 19 floors falling down on it...nor have they calculated out how fast the building *should* have fallen. If you can't do that, then your objections of "near free fall speeds" are moot because you have not proven it should have behaved differently.

You are neither and architect,engineer,contractor of any sort nor a physicist. Which explains why you blindly believe a report that doesn't explain how the building collapsed ,accurately and with clarity. And dont ask me how,,, I know..

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you "were revealed the truth in a dream" or "aliens beamed the truth into your head" the only way anyone can understand how the towers collapsed "accurately and with clarity" is specifically from reading a report someone wrote about it. We can disagree on the findings of the report, but the simple act of reading the report isn't anything that anyone needs to hide.

...and which report are you referring to here? The 9/11 commission report didn't document the physical causes of the collapse becuase that wasn't what the commission was set up to do- it was to document who attacked us, how they did it, and what the US did in response, in addition to recommendations so that it won't happen again. As a truther you had the obligation to know this before you began posting this drivel you got off some damned fool conspiracy web site. I shouldn't need to poitn that out to you.

Forget the impact , I'm talking about two masses, one being a god dam spec and the other with a mass capable of building a fleet of Warships.-- --You are stuck with the 19 floor causing havoc to a steel structure(including tower 7). Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Another thing you are clueless is the design of the 767. Aluminum wings did not enter the building, which accounts for some 5-10k gallons of fuel. Only the fuselage tank mite have entered the building. But it only holds 5-6k gallons of fuels. So your unstoppable "19" floors are a mask to the truth. Only idiots would believe 19 floors can cause all that damage. Especially when towers are designed to be stronger and heavier the lower floors. But you know that,, right?

Thank you for clarifying that there is two towers, I thought I was seeing double. My clone theory is easy to understand. Reenact what happened on 911 and I guarantee ,the towers will Never drop.

I don't care about how much resistance . I don't care if the towers fell in 9 seconds or 12. They fell completely ,quickly strait down, and never, allowing innocent people to evacuate. Get it!

Again I don't have to read some certified professionals perception on what happened on 911 to have an idea what happened. YOU DO. Which is why you are not educated enough to think on your own.

My obligation are a bit different. I don't care about ANY government report. I don't need them. You do. I clearly know and have been involved(grown-up) in tower development since my high school years. Which is why my signature is set in stone. My signature is perfect and cannot be debunked by you or G-deck or anyone in NIST/FEMA/ 911Commission.



Honestly out of all the shills its evident you are the least paid.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Here's an article you might find instructive:

www.newscientist.com...

You can see the world's most powerful firms and the fact that they own a staggering forty per cent of the economy through equity, holding companies and other positions. They are the financial titans of the world, and their power is extraordinary, and quite possibly damaging.

You are asking me to believe that either

these guys voluntarily destroyed huge profits, enormous parts of their businesses, and threw away cash for some extraordinary reason

or

there is some other layer of powerful people. The guys that own forty per cent of the world actually aren't in on the conspiracy. Behind it is a cadre who manage not to have a record of owning anything, trade in markets without trading in them, and who have kept out the giants of finance, the people who own almost everything, out of their conspiracy.

Both are highly implausible.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


You're signature is correct, however, seeing as what is described in your signature never happened, it is moot.

You've been developing towers since you were in high school?

Wow.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Forget the impact , I'm talking about two masses, one being a god dam spec and the other with a mass capable of building a fleet of Warships.-- --You are stuck with the 19 floor causing havoc to a steel structure(including tower 7). Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Another thing you are clueless is the design of the 767. Aluminum wings did not enter the building, which accounts for some 5-10k gallons of fuel. Only the fuselage tank mite have entered the building. But it only holds 5-6k gallons of fuels. So your unstoppable "19" floors are a mask to the truth. Only idiots would believe 19 floors can cause all that damage. Especially when towers are designed to be stronger and heavier the lower floors. But you know that,, right?

No offense intended, since I know you're only going by what those damned fool conspiracy web sites have told you, but you have to be among the top five horribly uninformed people I've met on ATS-

1) The WTC was essentially an "egg crate" design, meaning it was actually 95% air (as per MIT engineer Thomas Eagar. The structure did NOT have the mass you think it did.

2) The floors were held up in air by a horizontal brace connected between the internal cores and the perimeter columns. No floor contributed to the structural integrity to any other floor so your claim that "towers were designed to be stronger and heavier in the lower floors" does not apply here.

3) Every video of the impact specifically shows the wings did in fact puncture the outside face of the buildings, which mean they did in fact enter the building whether you want to agree with the fact or not.

4) The towers still withstood the impact for an hour, allowing the majority of people below the impact area to evacuate the building. Eight out of every nine people in the building actually suvived, either from their not arriving at work yet or they had time to evacuate, so your claim of "never allowing innocent peopel to evacuate" is false.


You may debate, you may bicker, and you may bark at the moon like a dog, as far as I'm concerned. The undebatable written in stone fact is that both the twin towers had the exact same design and they both suffered the exact same damage, so whatever happened to the first building was logically going to happen to the second building....and it did. If you go to the movies and see a particularly awful flick, it's absurd to think you can go to a different movie theater and presume the movie will somehow be better when you watch it a second time.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


With all due respect, this entire debate about the towers is entirely off topic.

The thread is about the investigation of the 9/11 Commission, not repeating and/or debunking 10-year old arguments.

Back on topic:

If there was any type of conspiracy to cover-up anything, the 9/11 Commission would be where to begin the research. So far it seems that the 9/11 Commission was filled with career government bureaucrats with self-interests that were in direct conflict with an unbiased investigation.

Not a good way to begin a legitimate investigation, in my opinion.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


Here is the deal. On 9/11/2001, we were attacked by Islamic terrorists who exploited our shortcomings and used our weaknesses against us. Those shortcomings and weaknesses were a result of DECADES of decisions made in good faith by our elected leadership and the people they appoint. In the days after the attack, they tried to create an illusion that our government had responded like a well-oiled machine, when in fact, once again, we were playing "catch up". Our response that day to the immediate event (the planes) was confused, disorganized and not worth a crap. As with most events like this in our history, it takes us a bit to pull our heads out and get to the job. By then, the attack was over.

That is why no one in the government wanted the Commission at first. They knew the reality was going to make them look like Keystone Kops.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Actually, if you look at the timeline I posted earlier you'll find that the Air Defenses did not have sufficient time to respond. The most they had was 9 minutes and that was with AA 11 prior to anyone realizing there was an attack.. Air Defense was not the solution to prevent 9/11 from happening anyway. To went much deeper and all points to an intelligence failure to predict a well planned and executed surprise attack. It's not the first time in history that a surprise attack has been successful. They usually are and 9/11 was no exception.

I've recently downloaded, but have yet to read, the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Will be doing so in the near future.

Garbage in, garbage out, is a pretty basic premise for anyone who does any type of investigative analysis in the performance of their job. As a design and construction professional I have investigated building failures of many types, the majority of which have to do with water infiltration. When undertaking such an investigation there are certain suppositions that need to be investigated before proceeding further with the analysis. These suppositions either need to be confirmed or eliminated as the source for the water. For instance, on a simplified level - a home owner finds water in their basement after a rainfall. Does this mean the foundation is compromised? If so, where and why was it compromised? Was the concrete mixture at fault or were methods of construction not properly followed? Have there been some changes to the environment or topography which altered water course patterns? Does the presence of water in the basement only suggest the the leak comes from the foundation? Of course not. It could very well mean the roof is leaking, which many times has been the case.

I use this only as an analogy to illustrate the idea that unless something exhibits itself in plain sight as a cause to an effect, then one must cast a wider net to find what they're looking for. OK so someone will now say, "We saw the planes fly into the buildings." To them I suggest looking into Voltaire a little bit.

I used the leak analogy to illustrate that if the 911 Commission only looked at "How could we allow airliners to be hijacked and subsequently used as weapons to destroy buildings?", then they would be by default, be eliminating all other possibilities of how such an event could occur.

I need to read the report, but if this is the only direction the report took, it's obviously flawed, which could be unintentional or purposefully misdirected by others. I agree, the first place to look is the commission and the report.

.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

With all due respect, this entire debate about the towers is entirely off topic.

The thread is about the investigation of the 9/11 Commission, not repeating and/or debunking 10-year old arguments.

Back on topic:

If there was any type of conspiracy to cover-up anything, the 9/11 Commission would be where to begin the research. So far it seems that the 9/11 Commission was filled with career government bureaucrats with self-interests that were in direct conflict with an unbiased investigation.

Not a good way to begin a legitimate investigation, in my opinion.

reply to post by Reheat


Yeah, I know that. Most who post on here do not.